Keeping an eye on transparency

Published
12:00 am CDT, Saturday, March 15, 2014

Illinois has never been at the forefront of transparency.

Efforts have been made, especially under Attorney General Lisa Madigan, but it’s a tough fight when going against special interest groups and elected officials who like doing business without public “interference.”

That isn’t the way government should be run.

The general public isn’t always well-versed on the state’s Freedom of Information Act or Open Meetings Act. These acts are by their nature lengthy and at times confusing. But they are important because these two acts establish the guidelines for what public bodies and elected officials can do in private.

It is crucial knowledge for everyone, not just those who make a living reporting on government.

For example, say you wanted to attend the next town council meeting to speak out on an issue that has sparked some controversy. A special meeting is scheduled for 9 a.m. Monday at a location 26 miles away to discuss the matter. Is this a violation of the Open Meetings Act? Likely, according to an attorney general’s opinion from last year. The binding decision essentially said meetings must be convenient to the public.

Or what if you notice an elected official is sending and receiving emails or text messages during a meeting and ask to see those messages, but are denied because the messages were sent from the official’s personal smartphone? As the city of Champaign found out last year, “it is not unreasonable to conclude communications ‘pertaining to the transaction of public business,’ which are sent to and received by city council members’ personal electronic devices during a meeting are in the possession of the public body.” That was the decision after a lengthy court fight that ended up going all the way to an appellate court.

If a request to review records or take part in a meeting is denied, the person making the request has the right to request the attorney general’s office review the decision. That happened 3,426 times last year — and it may be surprising that the majority of those requests did not come from the news media but from individuals exercising their rights. Of the 3,039 requests for review from those who were denied records under the Freedom of Information Act, 2,503 were from members of the public, 493 were from the media and 43 were from government entities. Of the 387 requests for review regarding Open Meetings Act violations, 273 were from members of the public, 99 were from the media and 15 were from public bodies.

Awareness of these two acts helps strengthen them against the constant attempts to erode any strength they gain. It also lets authorities know the old standard of transparency is not acceptable and people are willing to enforce their right to keep tabs on government.